Planning & Environment Committee - 6 August 2024 Transcript

1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:08

00:01:00 There are no confirmations, no presentations, deputations, so let's go straight to reports. Confirmations. Oh excuse me, confirmations of the minutes. I'll move. Thank you. Second. No discussion. All in favour? Thank you. Okay. No presentations, no deputations and reports for consideration of the committee. Item 5.1, 51998.2462.07. Application for an other change to a town planning consent permit for multiple dwellings, 65 units, conference facility and vehicle high premises at 16 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads. A welcome to the table. Our planning and staff, Patrick Murphy, Richard and ask that, and Tara, sorry, excuse me in time,

2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:01:12

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

5.1 51998.2462.07 APPLICATION FOR AN OTHER CHANGE TO A TOWN PLANNING CONSENT PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING (65 UNITS), CONFERENCE FACILITY AND VEHICLE HIRE PREMISES AT 16 NOOSA DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 00:01:36· Carried unanimously 4-0 from council's minutes

00:02:00 and ask that we just commence with a summary or overview of the report, Tara. Speaker 6: Sure. So this one is another change for an existing development approval for the Noosa Blue Resort. So it's a fairly straightforward change, but it is a little bit technical. So essentially what there is is this existing approval that was issued in 1998 for the multiple dwellings, the conference facility and the vehicle high premises. There was an additional approval issued in 2016 for the yoga studio that's on site at the moment and a restaurant. So this approval is seeking to basically consolidate those two approvals and remove the conference facility and the vehicle high premise from the approval. So the applicant is looking to convert an existing kitchen that was used for the conference facility that's behind the yoga studio at the moment, looking to convert that to a wellness spa.

00:03:00 So fungibles, you know, ice baths, things like that. They're looking to convert the existing restaurant that's at ground level, which is a retrospective approval. So they've already done the works to halve the tenancy and have one half as a cafe and the other as an additional yoga studio. And then the existing Hertz renter car building. Hertz has moved out and they're looking to convert that with multiple uses, so office food and drink, sorry, office indoor sport and rec or office as a potential interchangeable use in those buildings. So this report recommends approval and consolidating the conditions from the existing and existing facilities, including hours of operation and outdoor dining and removing some conditions that are referencing the conference facility. Any questions? Thank you, Tara. Questions, councillors? Mayor Wilkie: And Tara, in your report, thank you, it was a very good report, it mentions that there

00:04:00 will be no modifications to the outside of the building and all car parking can be accommodated on site. Correct. So does that mean for all intents and purposes, the community won't notice any change at that Speaker 6: Yeah, essentially. Yeah, so it's all internal modifications. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: All consistent with the uses? Speaker 6: Yeah, correct. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 7: How's the tour? Councillor Wegener: Oh, just going to accommodate, it's kind of an evolution of the Noosaville Resort going into this health space, this yoga space, the offices will probably be some sort of remedial health facilities. Speaker 6: So they don't have a tenant lined up for that building yet, which is why they've sought sort of interchangeable uses. So an office would be limited to specific uses that are allowed in the plan scheme. A health care facility is a separate, sorry, health care service is a separately defined

00:05:00 use that they haven't applied for. So something like a chiropractor or something like that would sit under that use. So we'll be looking at maybe an accountant or something like that that's a more traditional office. Okay. Councillor Wegener: That's interesting. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 7: Just a question. It's well addressed in your report. In terms of car parking, there is a requirement, 95.3, one space for 20 square metres, and there's an oversupply. The applicant actually has more car parking than is required. Yeah. Speaker 6: So the original approval, they provided more than what was required. Speaker 3: The scheme sets out minimum standards. So yeah. So in some situations, applicants will provide more than the minimum to ensure that users have got adequate parking available. Speaker 7: Any further questions?

00:06:00 Questions from the gallery? Thank you. Councillor Wilson: In Attachment 1, the proposed conditions, Condition 54 says that the food and drink outlet must not operate outside the hours of the proposed conditions. So that's the conditions of 7am to 10pm, Sunday to Thursday, and 7am to midnight, Friday and Saturday. Do those conditions apply to the existing restaurant on site? And is there likely to be any noise considerations for neighbouring properties? Speaker 6: So yes. So those are existing conditions that's on the 2016 approval. So they're basically just being rolled in from that original approval for that restaurant. I'm not aware of any noise complaints. Not to say there haven't been. But none that we've been made aware of. There's no additional outdoor dining proposed. So that's limited through that condition. And they've actually halved the size of that tenancy as well. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'm happy to move it, Madam Chair. Speaker 7: Can we have a second to please answer Brian? Any further discussion? All in favour? Councillor Wegener: Oh, excuse me.

00:07:00 Discussion. So we'll just, we'll just kind of vote this straight through to, to the ordinaries. There's nobody. Okay. Fantastic. Speaker 7: All in favour? Thank you. Grab report. Thank you, Tariq. Thank you, Tariq. All right. Next report for consideration of the committee is item 5.2, update to infrastructure and charges. This is really exciting. Welcome to D2. I'm so excited. Speaker 3: Thank you, Brian. We've got Lood online. Councillor Media. Sorry. We've got. We've got Lood online. Hey. Speaker 7: Welcome to the planning environment. Hi, Lood. Lood. Yeah. I'll pass it over to you. If you can give the committee and anyone watching today just an overview or summary for. Okay. Of the infrastructure charges resolution. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Good morning, councillors. This, the, the act requires councillors to have a charges resolution to be able to issue

5.2 UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION ¶

▶ 00:07:21· Carried unanimously 4-0 from council's minutes

00:08:00 charges on development as they get approved. This council's charges resolution is, this update is, is just a basic update to bring it in line with the recent indexation that the state did to the planning regulation. And it, yeah, it's, it just makes it more transparent and it has been updated quite a number of times, as you can see within the number of reports to council over the years. So basically it sets the level of charges at the current 2024, 25th rates. There's been no changes in the apportionments of, of charges or reductions to items. That council has previously applied. Speaker 1: So it's basically just a indexation update.

00:09:00 Speaker 7: Questions around the table. Mayor Wilkie: No. So thank you. Thank you. So you, you're saying in essence it's, it's a, it's a technical and mandatory update. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's, well, we don't have to, have to actually update it. Because we can still apply the indexation under the, under the legislation. But this just makes it a lot more transparent so that we 100% align with the current, schedule 16 of the planning regulation. Just makes it easier for everyone without having to understand how the indexation is applied by the state. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 7: My question is, are the increases in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, in the, Do you agree with construction costs and whether infrastructure charges are adequate?

00:10:00 Speaker 1: No, that's been an ongoing issue for quite a few years. The state sets the maximum charge under the regulation. The charges are not linked to councils legit and because of that the charges, I think the last few years the revenue from infrastructure charges has accounted for about 20% of the actual council's trunk infrastructure spend. I believe there is a resolution or something going to the state, upcoming, to actually contest that issue. And the LGAQ has done a massive report which clearly shows that all the infrastructure charges

00:11:00 across the state are not keeping up and not adequately paying for the trunk infrastructure for which they're collected. Speaker 7: No, they are going to LGAQ, you're right, and asking, and I've got a quote here, for fairness, especially given the way their middle ability is to do things. And I think that's what the council's had to fill the gap without impacting rate payers. So they've got a really big advocacy piece in this October LGAQ conference. And it's interesting because I think the Coffin Council have actually replied to LGAQ's motion and said that increasing the cap will impact on housing affordability. Yeah. LGAQ responded by saying small increases won't have an impact on housing affordability. And the issue is what happens with the infrastructure if councils can't fill in that gap, especially

00:12:00 critical infrastructure. Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, that's correct. Yeah, one big component that everyone's, that they tend to forget is that the first five years of this new charges regime, there was no indexation. There was no indexation at all. And that's straight away, you're five years behind on the charges now, which is about 20%, I believe, is what it should be, up high, just on that alone. Speaker 7: Yeah. Kim Rawlings, you've got your hand up, and welcome to planning committee. You can speak. Speaker 2: Yes. Good morning, councillors. Just further to Lord's response through the chair, there is a bill in front of parliament, and it's a bill that's been passed by the council, at the moment, that proposes to the planning and other legislation, that proposes to remove the caps on infrastructure charges, as Ruth just mentioned. So it's currently before parliament.

00:13:00 Speaker 7: Fantastic. Thank you. I'd be glad to have an update on that when that gets resolved. Sure. Any further questions? Councillor Tomlin and then Councillor Brown. Okay. Councillor Wegener: So, there are, you know, there are, you know, there are, you know, there are, you know, I think these reflect what we decided in the budget, which is caretakers accommodation in multiple dwellings have gone down by substantial amounts. Is that a reflection of what we decided in the budget this year? We're all again at rate A. Speaker 3: Yeah, so this is different from the rate. So your council has made some decisions regarding rates as such, but not infrastructure charges as such. So there's no change being proposed in relation to infrastructure charges specifically.

00:14:00 But did you want to speak to the point on any of those elements? Councillor Wegener: Residentials used as caretakers in multiple dwellings? Speaker 3: Which page are you referring to? Councillor Wegener: It's... I don't know. Is it in the spreadsheet? Yeah, it's in the spreadsheet. It's in the very top of the spreadsheet at the bottom. There's a table number there. The table number is... Speaker 1: The table should be 10.3 if you're looking at the charges resolution. But the charges haven't gone down. Speaker 4: It's gone forward. So they would be existing reductions that have been maintained. Is that correct? Speaker 1: They're the reductions that council decided to actually reduce the charges for those particular items. Because, you know, historically and, you know, correctly probably, if they are...

00:15:00 They actually have a lower demand compared to like a, you know, a one bedroom dwelling is not going to have the same amount of traffic as a two bedroom. Even though you could charge the full amount. But council decided, well, we've done that, you know, throughout the years to keep it aligned with previous policies. And it's just to align with the actual demand generation. And it's basically, it's just the one bedroom units are lower than a two bedroom units. And similarly, a secondary dwelling is lower again than a normal two bedroom dwelling. Which makes sense. Speaker 3: Can you clarify when those council made those decisions on those reductions? Speaker 1: Well, basically they followed all the previous PSPs that were prior to 2011 and the ICP before.

00:16:00 The same proportion was adopted by the Sunshine Coast Council initially. In 2011 when the adopted charges first came into play. From each of the three planning schemes back then. And then council, you know, maintained that when Noosa came, you know, was formed again. And so 2014 onwards, there have been the amounts, the reductions. Speaker 3: So essentially they're maximum charges. But in this particular case, you see in that column forward, council has opted for a lower based on demand. You know, i.e. where there's less bedrooms in a particular dwelling unit. But the charge rate reflects that there's less demand. Therefore the charge is reduced. So a fairly logical reason why you wouldn't charge a higher structure amount in those small units. Councillor Wegener: So it just seems very consistent.

00:17:00 With where council is going. Yeah. Speaker 7: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So my question probably follows on from that. It's probably to Kim Rawlings. In our housing strategy we committed to exploring concessions on development costs. Such as application fees and infrastructure charges. On a pro rata basis where a proportion of the development will be for long term social or affordable housing. So as we get to these amendments don't do that. Is that body of work coming to council in the near future? Speaker 2: Thanks councillor Stockwell. Through the chair. Yes it is. So you may recall that we have had some discussions with council. That council already does offer a range of incentives. So we offer, you know, discounted rates for not for profits and social enterprises. And, you know, so there are a range of incentives already in place. But yes, that we have looked further into what might be viable. And a report will be coming to council in the near future.

00:18:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Speaker 7: Any further questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think the key point that was raised in this debate is that there is draft legislation which hopefully will put the burden of deciding appropriate level infrastructure charges back on the local government. As we heard the capping was a result of strong advocacy from the property industry rather than from councils. It was based in my opinion on the misconception that developers not having to pay the full cost of providing the services to the developments they are undertaking in some way affected the selling price of homes and dwellings. It is, has been.

00:19:00 And a mechanism where generally what the outcome is, is the existing rate payers pay upfront for the services to provide the rate payers yet to come to the Shire and that is inequitable. We may have only, you know, 20% coming for our trunk infrastructure upgrades. We have a fairly modest development growth footprint. I know in councils like Logan. They may be looking at something like a billion dollars over 10 years to meet the gap. So it is a significant issue. Speaker 7: Any further comments? No. No further discussion. All in favour? Thank you. We'll now go to the next item for noting by the committee for the next item.

00:20:00 Which is item 5.3 ECU 22 slash 0201 application for material change of use for car wash and food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy. I am moving this item to general meaning because of the significance of the matter. But we will move on to the next item. We will have a discussion too late. So I'm going to hand it over to Dean Morgan. Thank you, Councillor Miller. Speaker 5: Good morning. As Councillor Miller has introduced, this is an application for a material change of use for a car wash and food and drink facility at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy. The proposed car wash involves car washing facilities with two auto bays, two manual wash bays.

5.3 MCU22/0201 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR CAR WASH AND FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 34 ELM STREET, COOROY ¶

▶ 00:20:05· Carried unanimously 4-0 from council's minutes

00:21:00 And two super wash bays along with three vacuum bays and a dog wash area. Access comes in off Opal Street and exits out Diamond Lane. The applicant also proposes a small food and drink outlet on the corner of Elm Street and Opal Street. And that's to provide generally coffee and sort of food and drink as an ancillary sort of facility for the car wash and food and drink facility. The car wash, the applicant intends has sought approval for a 24 hour, seven day a week proposal. However, they have verbally indicated that if there are concerns with some operations they'd be happy to perhaps limit some of their night time operations. Just as a comparison, the two car wash bays that we've got down in Noosaville, there's the existing one near Bunnings that has four car wash bays. The other one opposite the Good Shepherd, it has four manual wash bays plus the two

00:22:00 big wash bays as well as vacuum bays as well. So it just gives you an idea of size. The site is located in the Cooroy local planning area and included in the district centre sign. It is an, the Noosa plan indicates it as an inconsistent use and therefore it's impact accessible and subject to a whole lot of change. The public notification period, the applicant advertised it and as a result of the advertising and public notification there are approximately 520 submissions of which 498 were in support of the proposal with 19 objections. The district centre sign in accordance with the Noosa plan is intended to cater for commercial development and it's to maintain there's a whole range of provisions in the planning scheme. It's on the eastern side maintaining a traditional town centre as well as with the development

00:23:00 of addressing the street, active street fronts and cars not dominating the streets as well. The proposed car wash isn't considered to meet these provisions of the planning scheme. It's considered to reinforce the partially established industrial character from reduced service stations on the street. And again reinforces the dominance of cars along that locality rather than providing for shop frontages which is what we envisage under the district centre sign. The, sorry, the also when we're looking at it we've considered, we have considered need and in my report we've addressed sort of there are three aspects of need which relate economic need, community need and planning need. And in relation to the above you know it is agreed that there is no car wash within Cooroy

00:24:00 and the surrounds with residents having to go down to Noosaville. However on balance the loss of the district centre's own land which is intended for commercial and retail uses and the proposed car wash having limited employment opportunities it doesn't fit the needs of the district centre. In terms of that district centre sign and we don't support the car wash as a main reason. Strategic and the strategic environment department have also advised that there is limited centre signed land in Cooroy, approximately about three, over 3,000 square metres compared to industrial land in Cooroy which there is approximately 11 and a half hectares of council owned land which is undeveloped. Council has also three lots which are about 5,000 square metres which are at the end of

00:25:00 Jarrah Street, or not at the end, close to the end of Jarrah Street. There are also four lots along Mary River Road which have, which are in private ownership and that's about 4,000 square metres. They're underdeveloped with houses on them. We also have Taylor Court which is owned industry as well. It has two hectares of undeveloped land in Cooroy. We've got land at the rear with 1.9 hectares facing Holts Road. Holts Road which is undeveloped. There is also a future proposal for 23 hectares to go into urban footprint under the shaping of the SEQ under the state government. That's also on Holts Road as well. So, the relevance of that is that a car wash is a consistent use in the industrial design. So, one of our reasons, again, is that we want to have a car wash in Cooroy. Again, going back to that, is there is limited district centre zone land, while there is more industrial land available for this type of development.

00:26:00 We've also, at the time of preparation of this report, which was several weeks ago, we had, unfortunately, only received verbal advice from our traffic consultant. And that initial verbal advice had indicated that the proposal was appropriate. He's had, we've since sort of liaised with him in terms of, you know, what he's been doing in terms of the traffic. His comments are that the existing, there was an existing shopping centre approval on the site. And in terms of the traffic generated by the car wash, that would actually be less than the shopping centre. However, he has raised some further concerns in terms of the queuing coming into Opal Street. And he's not satisfied after a further review of that, that that queuing won't congest Opal Street. So, we've only just received that today. So, following those discussions, we can also include that as a further grounds for refusal.

00:27:00 And Diamond Lane? Oh, and Diamond Lane, there are some concerns in terms of sort of exiting and the impact on that intersection as well. Speaker 4: So, the commercial development only allowed the service vehicles to exit via Diamond Lane as a loopback was proposed. And in this circumstance of the car wash, all vehicles were allowed to exit via Diamond Lane. Speaker 3: And it's important to, I think, highlight, too, that Opal Street is a state controlled road. And so, the Department of State and the main roads were a referral agency. So, this application provided no concerns from their perspective. The way we're consulting this is, you know, there's been some feedback. And it feels like the applicant hasn't demonstrated satisfactorily that the use is adequately addressed. Queuing, particularly during peak periods, may be a little bit more difficult. I think a lot of people have been up at the north shore or further north, when it's

00:28:00 likely to have a higher volume of vehicles potentially during the car wash and so on. Speaker 7: Okay. I'm going to throw it to the table for questions. And I know we've got lots. So, Tom, you can start. Councillor Wegener: Sorry. So, thank you. And humour me, because that's a very basic question. Okay. First, what is the sentence that it's inconsistent with? I mean, because usually, when we look at something that's inconsistent, it's usually the height or not enough car park. Speaker 5: It's an inconsistent use in the zone. It's an inconsistent use. A car wash in the district centre zone is an inconsistent use. So, it's not desired. That's under the Noosa plan, the table of assessment. Speaker 4: Or, there's a table of assessment within this game. And it sets out that it's no business uses, accommodation type uses, industrial uses, infrastructure uses. It breaks them up. And it says, if you're doing this use, you're accepted development, or you're code assessable,

00:29:00 or you're impact assessable, all consistent use. And then, for some uses, if it doesn't specify them, they fall into the bucket of an inconsistent use. So, the scheme's saying, in this zone, these are the uses we want, those consistent uses. But the inconsistent uses are those that the scheme hasn't designed that zone to accommodate the use. Speaker 5: So, we have code assessable and impact assessable. And that's what... So, where it's not defined, it becomes an impact assessable and inconsistent use. Councillor Wegener: So, if it's not a consistent use... Yes. ...then it's an inconsistent use. That's correct. And then it becomes... Okay. Yes. And so, the tables of assessment... Yes. Speaker 5: ...they're in... The table's part five. Councillor Wegener: Sorry. You guys can... Oh, look here. Speaker 5: I'll just show you here. I can show you right here. But this is part five. So, in your table of assessment.

00:30:00 In your table of assessment, part five code use. Speaker 4: Okay. We can go through this. This gives... Yeah. ...this gives all prospective developers guidance in terms of the framework that they're going to pass through in terms of an assessment of a development application. And council's planning... And council's positioned prospectively on that type of development. Speaker 5: So, this is the district centre zone here. Yeah. And you can see a caretaker. And then it's code assessable. And these are the codes it has to follow. Speaker 7: Can I step in? Yeah. Yes. Yes. Can you define district centre zones? So, my understanding is... It's land available for commercial, community and entertainment related uses. And it provides or pays for the needs of the similar communities. Yes. So, the issue we've got is whether the use is commercial or industrial.

00:31:00 Yes. And that's where I'm going to go with my next questions. Can you... And this... I actually struggled to find this. And this is... There is, for me when I look at what is industrial use, I sort of ended up in the low impact industry zoning to get an idea of what's considered industrial, and when you take a look at low impact industry zones, they reference manufacturing, processing, supply, repairs, so business to business. Commercial activity, couldn't find any clear definition in our discipline scheme, but it would be used to sort of common sense, business to business. So here's where I'm sort of struggling, and question to you Lydie, why isn't a commercial car wash a commercial activity?

00:32:00 Speaker 5: So a car wash is a definition under the state legislation. So that's incorporated into our planning scheme. So there's a definition of car wash, and when the Noosa plan was written in 2020, it has been indicated, it has been determined, a decision has been made that car wash is not a consistent use in a commercial zone, and it's a consistent use in the industrial zone. So the terminology, the definition is a state definition, but our planning scheme includes it, as being suitable use in an industrial zone. Because a car wash again has, it's got different processes, and it has greater impacts than a normal commercial development. You know, you've got noise from vacuums, you've got overspray, there's a whole, it's a more, it's a higher level of noise impact than you would have from a commercial development, which might just have trucks delivering.

00:33:00 So that's, that's under the Noosa plan. So when you go and look at the district centre zone code, if you flick right back up to the purpose and overall outcomes, it talks about a large variety of uses and activities to serve the district of the Noosa Shire, including, for example, administrative, business, community, cultural, entertainment, professional, residential, or retail uses or activities. And when you go, yes, to the industrial zone, it talks about more about processes and things like that. But our scheme has designated a car wash has been indicated. Yes. Speaker 4: In our definitions, we also have defined activities, and it breaks them into recreation activities, infrastructure activities, industry activities, business activities, accommodation activities, and then within there, there's a subset of uses. And within the industry activities, a car wash is nominated as a subset of an industry activity.

00:34:00 So it pushes it into that category. Speaker 5: That's if you go down into our, if you go down into definitions. Yes. Speaker 4: It has to define activity groups. That's right. Speaker 7: So when do we get uses? And I'm looking at it in the context of the area. You've got two service stations. Service stations, are they industrial or commercial activities? And my other question is, is a car wash ancillary to a service station that would be consistent use? Speaker 5: A car wash. I think, yeah, I think you've got it. I think if you look at it that way, yes. And I think if this had been included with the service station, on one of those service station sites, you know, that would be something we could look at, co-locating it, but as a standalone use. When you look at it, this is three lots. This is three lots. This isn't just a small site. This is, this is, what am I saying here?

00:35:00 It's, you know, it's three lots. It's over 1,800 square metres of, of land that's getting taken out and being used for an industrial purpose. Cars driving through. So those service stations were approved a long, long time ago. I think I've got that written in my report. Speaker 3: Yes, the 1980s. Speaker 5: Yeah. So they were a long time ago under different schemes. So now we've, you know, the scheme, I'm going to say, I can't remember what the scheme is. Speaker 3: I mean, it's important to highlight, too, what the, the current scheme for the nursing plan is seeking to achieve from those locations is district centre. So it's essentially seeking shopping type operation that's consistent with the local village, where the shops that fit in with the existing character that we're seeking. The concern, from the assessment perspective, is that, you know, there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of development going on in the area, but what's more effective is the use is, is more industrial in nature, and won't provide the, the sort of the street interface

00:36:00 that the planning scheme is seeking. And there's a direct conflict with that. So whilst there's acknowledgement on the need to piece four a car wash in the Cooroy area, the concern is that the, the use is, is inappropriate and better suited to one of those other lots So there are lots that are located in the Cooroy area that do have the industrial zoning, that are not far away, that could be utilised and developed for this particular purpose. Speaker 5: Further to your comment though, service stations are an impact accessible, inconsistent use in the district centre zoning. So that's under our current scheme. So if they were coming in to apply for that now, we wouldn't support them. Speaker 4: Just to add to that, a service station is a business activity, but a car wash is an industrial activity. But notwithstanding the district centre zone, a service station is still an inconsistent impact accessible use.

00:37:00 Speaker 7: In terms of, so the car wash doesn't go ahead. That site... ...was sitting dormant for quite some period. And I think in the reports and the tracking documents, I think it actually states that the previous owner sold the name because there was little or no response in terms of retail space. So... ...my question is... ...when you look at uses and impacts... ...you mentioned the traffic report, it has said that there's less impact in terms of traffic with a car wash, rather than retail stores, for example. There's a small elderly store, etc. So in terms of impacts, what impacts does a car wash have that's worse than, say, a commercial activity?

00:38:00 Speaker 5: What are the impacts of a car wash? So again, as we've highlighted too, we've got that further advice now that there are the impacts on the queuing. So getting in, there's some potential for cars to... The applicant hasn't satisfactorily demonstrated that cars won't impact on that intersection because they're trying to turn and get in at queuing. Yes, they have addressed the noise. There were several submissions that were in relation to the potential for noise. And at that late time... ...that late night use might be an issue in terms of the noise, in terms of vacuums, car doors, people. But, yep, they did address noise. We've got stormwater that has been satisfactorily addressed as well.

00:39:00 So, I suppose it's lighting might be different as well. You've got lighting, you've got people using that site, all... ...potentially all during the night, which has a different level of impact than a shopping complex which might close at, you know, 5 or 6. Speaker 7: Well, in terms of the spillwater and waste water management claim, can you explain what the applicant's proposing for the proposed car wash? Because I've never seen... Probably not. ...like this. I actually spoke to the designer yesterday who is intending to publish an article on, you know, if this car wash goes ahead. But the detail... Yeah. ...and the process and the passion the applicant has for aiding the environment and to provide a community, you know, a well-needed service. But it's still more than a natural thing.

00:40:00 Can you give us a little bit of detail on what you want to propose? Speaker 4: It might be appropriate for us to bring a development engineer to a general community meeting to discuss the details in a more manual way. Yeah, that's great. Speaker 5: I wouldn't want to meet like that. Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm not an expert in that. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 3: And all of those details can be worked through the operational work stage as well. Whether it's the details and the specific mechanics of how that's going to achieve particular work quality outcomes will be delivered through the operational works application part of the process, which comes after a decision made about the in-use component. But there will be some high-level elements that need to be considered as part of the original system. Fantastic. Speaker 5: So we can have a further discussion. Yeah. But as I said, I think it would be very good if our engineer had to give us that information. To speak to that. Speaker 3: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: You go ahead. Speaker 5: I've got a question. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, thank you. Just so I understand what I'm reading, on page 14 of 17 of the planning officer's report, it looks like, am I reading this correctly, that the available amount of district centre land in Cooroy totals about 3,200 square metres, if you add up all those figures on the table, is that right?

00:41:00 Speaker 5: Yes, that's right. Yep. Mayor Wilkie: And then to go below that, in Cooroy highlighted in yellow the available amount of district centre land. 16.57. Is that 16.57 hectares? Hectares. Speaker 5: Yes, that's correct. Mayor Wilkie: So you compare that, the amount of district centre land, which is for job-generating employment and commercial activities, relatively rare, only 3,200 square metres, but for industrial land is, given that one hectare is 10,000 square metres, so we're looking at 160,000 square metres of land zone for industrial uses in Cooroy? Speaker 5: Yes, that's correct. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. And the site itself already has an approval for small shopping centre and nine shops.

00:42:00 Speaker 5: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Could you give us some ballpark figure about the amount of jobs generated between, should the application go ahead? They've got approval to build. On that vacant lot, there's been approval granted in 2019 for small shopping centre and nine shops, versus a car wash. Traditionally, can you compare? Speaker 5: So the applicant indicated that they've got three spaces designated for staff, so there might be up to three people. We've got the cafe, which will generate at least one person. There might be somebody dealing with the car wash in terms of change and just being on site for that. So you might have a generation of two to three. It would flick over to the shopping centre of its nine shops. You could at least, basically staff, there would be at least nine people there. It could be greater. There'd be different hours. So, yeah, it's got a greater employment generation than the car wash.

00:43:00 Mayor Wilkie: So that's one of the intents of the planning scheme is to have that site for employment generating activities? Yes. So if I understand the report right, you're saying staff, you don't recommend approval for this development because of the... ...for the entry statement to Cooroy coming from the coast? Speaker 5: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Also that the best outcome from Cooroy would be the approved shops on the site with the car wash on some of the land in the industrial estate? Speaker 5: That's correct, yes. Mayor Wilkie: And there are concerns about queuing in Diamond Lane and Opal Street that the car wash could create? Speaker 7: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Speaker 7: I'm going to ask you lots of questions.

00:44:00 Councillor Wegener: First of all, I'd love to meet up because I want to be able, I really want to be able to understand the planning scheme. I don't see the tables of assessment listed here and also, so I just want to talk to you about that. And then, of course, in the planning, it says the state and other statutory instruments. It doesn't say that it's an industrial use. You say that it's an industrial use in the state plan. Is that right? In the tables of assessment. In the tables of assessment. That's the state plan. No, no, no. It's a plan. It's a plan. It's a plan. Speaker 4: We did a definitions section. It has the abominable activity groups. And again, accommodation or business activities, recreation and industry, and the car wash is this. Councillor Wegener: Then the next question is, I want to know this because if this is approved, then I want to know the impact of the planning scheme. And so the question actually to Kim Rollings, did we perhaps get the planning scheme wrong

00:45:00 in this particular area? And I'm saying this because the big real estate next to the BP is currently empty. Railway Square, the upstairs, is currently empty. And so the businesses that are there, Sowers, the petrol stations, they're busy. But the office space is not. And so, and here we have something that, you know, people, somebody's willing to invest in, which a lot of people, like in 448 people, some of them are willing to invest in. They've said, you know, that's what they want. They're okay with it. So what happens when our planning scheme seems to be actually out of step with reality? Speaker 2: What a great question. So, Councillor Wegener, towns like Cooroy that are separated by rail, or separated by

00:46:00 some major road, or, you know, can you talk a little bit about that? Well, you know, the city can always have challenges around creating an integrated and combined, you know, centre. So in, you know, in the development of the Noosa Plan, it was very much community aspiration, you know, to ensure that the centre reflected both sides of, you know, of town. And so the Noosa Plan was built on that basis. And to look for ways to, you know, to integrate and, you know, and, and, and, and, and, and, and build that kind of, you know, character around, and around Cooroy Centre. Because it does sit across the railway, two sides of, you know, of town. So that was kind of the fundamental kind of driver behind the provisions for making this part of town district centre.

00:47:00 That it is, you know, a legitimate part of town. It offers services. You know, it's part of town. So, you know, it can provisionally. Can provisions in the Noosa Plan be reviewed? Yes, they can be. But that's what really, you know, that was what was really driving, you know, the drafting of the provisions and the approach to this side of town being made district centre at the time. And, you know, what, what the team have done is assess this application in line with the current provisions of Noosa Plan. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have a subsequent follow on? The plan is about establishing the desired future. There are a number of projects going on in this locality. One, to look at how we improve the pedestrian connectivity across the railway line. The other is to actually look at the potential for a transit centre, which would see this as a key hub for people coming into the Shire, getting off a train or a bus, and then connecting

00:48:00 to local initiatives going down. Would that change, you know, would, if those pedestrianisation, more parking, you know, passing traffic, more visitation from the railway station, would that change the nature of what the market would see as appropriate in the district centre zone? Speaker 2: I would say absolutely yes. So you're absolutely correct. The plan is about the future design state for our Shire and our localities. So it definitely sets up, you know, what, where we want, you know, where our community wants our town to be and what the appropriate, you know, land use responses are to that. And absolutely there are a range of things underway at the moment, particularly around planning for addressing some of the movement and connectivity challenges and issues in Cooroy. But yes, I would say absolutely that would strengthen the integration of the town and

00:49:00 what might, you know, be considered by the market more feasible on these key sites. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Speaker 7: Okay. Further questions? This will be moved to the general meeting. I have a couple more questions, Nadine. The report indicates that it's all appropriate to have car wash visits in industrial nature located in an industrial site. I'm still challenged on the definition that car wash is industrial. I'm still challenged on that. And so what I'm thinking is, A, are we not taking up more space?

00:50:00 B, are we taking up more space to have a valuable industrial land if it's located in an industrial zone? Are we then putting a commercial car wash in an industrial area? And is that taking up land for proper industrial activities? So, you know, I think, okay, my question is can the use be legally challenged? Can the use of the land be legally challenged? Speaker 5: So the NUSA plan has identified it as an industrial activity. The NUSA plan, the table of assessment, includes a car wash, details a car wash in the district centre as an impact-assessable inconsistent use. That's what the planning scheme says. The NUSA plan table of assessment indicates that a car wash is a consistent use in the industrial zone land.

00:51:00 So that's what I've got to work with and that's what we've got to work with. So in terms of looking at it, I suppose the other thing to look at with a car wash, I suppose there is a process happening. The cars go in, there's wash, there's some process and servicing going on, which to me you can look at it from, as an industrial activity, there's processing happening. The car's going in dirty and coming out clean. There's water, there's spray, there's lots of mechanical moving parts, which is different to a shopping centre where you have business, where you have people sitting down, whatever. Office-type functions, retail-type functions, we're not having things. And even if it is perhaps servicing, you might have, I don't know, computer repairs or something like that, or watchmakers or whatever. So it's quite a lesser impact than big machines operating a noisy industrial vacuum,

00:52:00 sort of high volume, high level. We've got water spraying. So in terms of that more commercial retail uses that we're used to, I can sort of see how it fits into that sort of industrial activity here. There's some processing and servicing happening. Speaker 7: But it's useless to households. Speaker 5: That's a service, yeah. It's a convenient service that's being provided, yes. If it is a service, it's servicing a lot of community. Yes, I agree. May I ask one more? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Just so we're clear about comparing apples with apples, you're saying that the district centre land is in short, relatively short supply. 3,200 square metres. 3,200 square metres is actually 0.32 of a hectare. Speaker 5: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Compared to 116.57 hectares.

00:53:00 Speaker 5: That's, yeah, approximately, yes. Mayor Wilkie: Of industrial land. Speaker 5: And potentially another 23 hectares under the SEQ, shaping the SEQ. Right. Mayor Wilkie: So you're saying, to maintain the character of the Cooroy entry area, provide employment, maximise employment, generating opportunities, have something that's consistent with the character of Cooroy, it's a better outcome to have the already approved shops on that site and the car wash in some of the industrial land out of Cooroy. I notice in your report you acknowledge the need for the car wash in the Cooroy area. But it's a good idea, but in the wrong place. Yes. That's what you're suggesting? Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Speaker 7: Councillor Tom. Any further questions? Councillor Wegener: No. No, I'm happy to move it. Speaker 7: Councillor Nicola. Yes, please. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Of the submissions made, we weren't able to pinpoint where those people live,

00:54:00 so could we see if the people in support or against the proposal actually live in the surrounding roads where they'd be more affected? Speaker 5: A lot of them work with Cooroy addresses. I didn't pinpoint them, but yeah, a lot of them are. That's the reason why I'm asking about that. Speaker 4: Maybe the rejections count on it? Yeah. In terms of the most moderate... The rejections rather than support? Yes. Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Just not quite right. Mayor Wilkie: Madam Chair, are you moving it goes to the... Speaker 7: If I'm moving it, it goes to the general one because of the significance of the matter and I'm not going to counsel to have a discussion about it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Tom. Any further discussion or environment? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Nidhi. No worries. Thank you, Nidhi. Thank you, Nidhi. Are you down? Speaker 5: If you come down, once you're finished, come down and see us, we'll go through it. Councillor Wegener: Good. Thanks. Speaker 7: Oh, sorry. All right.

00:55:00 So, we're now up to reports and noting. Six, and we're going to 6.1, three applications decided by delegated authority. And I'll hand it over to Patrick. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Sorry. Sorry. Speaker 4: A monthly report for the matters that were decided by delegation for the month of June. You have the table which details all those decisions that were made under delegation. I should advise, I've just picked up, that if the report includes the applications for the additions to the vet rig clinic, which was actually reported to Council at the last time, about that June round meeting, so that shouldn't be in this report, so just a minor adjustment there. But other than that, you've got the report details, those applications that were decided under delegation. Speaker 7: Councillor, is there any questions?

6.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - JUNE 2024 ¶

▶ 00:55:04· Carried unanimously 4-0 from council's minutes

00:56:00 Mr Nidhi, any questions? No. Councillor Wegener: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question. I see the Noosa Woods Park and Public Toilets Club out in drive, so I'm not at the works meetings. And so what's happening there? Speaker 4: That was the operational works approval that was for the dredging. And it was just a minor increase in the extent of area that needed to be dredged to facilitate the completion of the works. That was a minor change to that approval. Councillor Wegener: By the way, if any of you have any questions, please feel free to put them in the chat There's still plenty of water around Dog Beach. It's not just a giant Sahara desert type situation. It's very nice. I'm happy to move if I don't shake. Speaker 7: Second, Dr Nilsson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Kip, before, for thoroughness, should we vary the motion to including extricating the Noosaville veterinary surgeon from that?

00:57:00 We're going to provide some suggestive wording. Speaker 3: Could we move the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But it's not seconded. Speaker 3: So the motion hasn't been seconded, so it doesn't exist. We're going to move out, take that out. Just excluding. Just to say excluding. Speaker 4: MCU 16, forward slash 0070.01, 70.01. We could just leave it at that.

00:58:00 That's fine. Mayor Wilkie: And just the reason for that, it's already been approved. Is that the only reason? So it's more accurate to say it hasn't been approved under delegated authority. That's correct. That's what you're saying. Speaker 4: That's fine. So this is a report, itemised in today's report. Those applications have been decided by delegated authority. Yeah. That one clearly wasn't decided by council. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockbridge, your motion. And I'll second it. No, your motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, you want me to do it? Yeah. Okay, I'll move it. Mayor Wilkie: I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so, and I will raise one more thing, because I got a bit excited last night when I saw the item relating to moving a house within the character area of Pomona, and I had a look at the lovely little house at 11 Station Street, and fortunately, it's not moving very far. It's about lifting the dwelling to establish a habitable first floor level of 90.4 AHD, approximately one metre above the flood level, repositioning the dwellers in the site to

00:59:00 achieve two metre side boundary setback. So, we're not losing a character house, just in case others like me got a bit excited about losing a little bit of a character house. Speaker 3: That's correct. Yeah. Speaker 7: All in favour? That's carried unanimously. And that brings us now to 5 and 7, and the collective interest sessions. So, I now declare the meeting closed at 10.30. Thank you, councillors. Thank you. Thank you.